cnz3 From Canada, joined Mar 2006, 130 posts, RR: 0 Posted (3 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 17080 times:
A strange incident is said to have occured at YYZ Monday night, as per the Star.
Apparently a WG employee left their company van in gear after exiting the vehicle to inspect their plane. The van then hit the engine cowling of the '37, then went on and eventually crossed an active runway. ATC noticed it and instructed an AC flight from YEG to go around, twice, but were ignored.
The plane landed safely; the AC crew later said they thought the go around was for someone else.
cjg225 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 209 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (3 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 16922 times:
Quoting Boeing744 (Reply 1): Wow... Would love to hear a recording of the ATC command!
As would I.
I'm sure it'll be up on LiveATC eventually. It's not under their "Interesting Recordings" list yet, which is strange, since this happened a few days ago. The article doesn't give a time and I'd rather not go scrolling through hours of recordings trying to find it.
FDH From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 88 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (3 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 16749 times:
Quoting cjg225 (Reply 2): The article doesn't give a time and I'd rather not go scrolling through hours of recordings trying to find it.
You are right, there are quite a few possibilities, however the article says it happened just before midnight, so it was probably flight 178 scheduled to arrive in YYZ at 23:41.
cjg225 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 209 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (3 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 16667 times:
Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 4): The paper says it happened monday night, with an AC flight arriving from YEG. Shouldn't be that difficult to find.
The unsaid part of my post is that I am procrastinating on a project right now and didn't feel guilty about checking A.net quickly but did feel guilty about trying to figure out the proper time, even if it only took a few minutes.
But, now that I'm a bit farther ahead on the project, time for another couple minutes of procrastination and a check of LiveATC.
Quoting FDH (Reply 3): You are right, there are quite a few possibilities, however the article says it happened just before midnight, so it was probably flight 178 scheduled to arrive in YYZ at 23:41.
Ah, okay. I didn't see the midnight part when I scanned the article, so I assumed it was any time after sun-down. Thanks for the info.
Plus, I am still a neophyte with flight-tracking stuff. I saw an all-gray, unmarked large jet landing at SCE yesterday morning as I was leaving State College and I, for the life of me, cannot figure out how to pull up flight data on flights that occurred before the current calendar date. I've checked FlightStats, FlightTracker, etc. and can only seem to get current-day info. I know there are ways to see past information, but I am new to this stuff, so I don't know how to do it.
PHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 5102 posts, RR: 14 Reply 6, posted (3 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 16310 times:
Wow what a strange event. Some van driver is going to be reading the help-wanted section tomorrow....
Quoting cjg225 (Reply 2): I'm sure it'll be up on LiveATC eventually. It's not under their "Interesting Recordings" list yet, which is strange, since this happened a few days ago. The article doesn't give a time and I'd rather not go scrolling through hours of recordings trying to find it.
Holy crap I agree if anyone finds this on LiveATC or anywhere post it here!
Gonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1690 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (3 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 16232 times:
Quoting cnz3 (Thread starter): A strange incident is said to have occured at YYZ Monday night, as per the Star.
So, a loose vehicle crossing an active runway, a 737 engine cowling damaged by that vehicle, and a crew ignoring a Go Around instruction twice.... this kind of comedy of errors is always funny until someone dies.... I hope the Canadian authorities punish severely this behavior, specially the guy who was driving that van. He was driving in a major airport, not in supermarket parking....
And that crew in the E190 should have a retraining to learn how to memorize the flight number they have.
I don't know a lot about air traffic talk, but my uneducated ears tell my brain, "How do you think that call was for someone else? Or was that just an excuse that you weren't paying attention at all?"
PHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 5102 posts, RR: 14 Reply 11, posted (3 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 15749 times:
Sounds like the controller just said "178" without including AC in the callsign...while I think they would have gotten the message if the controller said AC in his callsign to that flight, since they were the only 178 landing at that time I would think they would've heard it too.
jerseyguy From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1145 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (3 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 15310 times:
Listening to the recording, frankly the 2nd call you can't count it is mumbled and incoherent listening to it several times not knowing what it was sounded like "Flight 78 pullup brown". First one they just must have not been paying close attention..
fca767 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2006, 1720 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (3 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 14833 times:
the atc said it very softly and added too many other words. It would have been better if there was a danger to say "Air Canada! 178 GO AROUND GO AROUND"
bueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 547 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (3 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 13652 times:
Quoting cjg225 (Reply 10): "How do you think that call was for someone else? Or was that just an excuse that you weren't paying attention at all?"
Partly because the controller didn't say the callsign, just the flight number. It's very easy to blank out a call if you don't perceive it as being for you, and many pilots, especially if they're focusing on something else, will switch on when it comes to the radio once they hear their company's callsign and it's easy to miss the call if you don't hear what you expect to hear. Not excusing them, but this is why in the rest of the world, we use the ICAO guidelines for go-around instructions - "Air Canada 178, GO AROUND, I say again, GO AROUND, acknowledge".
zkokq From Australia, joined Mar 2012, 302 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (3 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 13310 times:
People seem quick to blame the pilots saying they should be fired. From what I heard it was muffled and not clear. The controller should have been more clear and concise with his directions.
NBGSkyGod From United States of America, joined May 2004, 602 posts, RR: 1 Reply 16, posted (3 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 13204 times:
This sounds like many errors on the part of the ground personnel, the pilots, and the controller. The ground guy may not be fired if it turns out to have been a mechanical malfunction. I worked at a place that the shifter on the van did not indicate the correct position of the shifter...you had to count to find the right slot. Both the pilots and controller will most likely face some form of retraining.
"I use multi-billion dollar military satellite systems to find tupperware in the woods."
Gonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1690 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (3 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 13092 times:
Quoting NBGSkyGod (Reply 16): The ground guy may not be fired if it turns out to have been a mechanical malfunction
Sorry, but there is no excuse. I work daily with heavy equipment for mining and explosive material. We have a procedure to follow before leaving a vehicle alone : * Panel Check ( lights, signals, gear position ). Parking Brake. Engine Off. Energy off (switch the energy from batteries off ). Lock Out.* . One could expect that, in a major airport, people driving trucks and vans around planes filled with potentially hundreds of souls on board, must follow AT LEAST the basic "Parking Brake - Engine Off" sequence. Is not that hard.
Quoting bueb0g (Reply 14): Not excusing them, but this is why in the rest of the world, we use the ICAO guidelines for go-around instructions - "Air Canada 178, GO AROUND, I say again, GO AROUND, acknowledge".
You're right, the ATC guy didn't help too much either with his calls. A clear and firm call would probably be much more useful in this case.
NBGSkyGod From United States of America, joined May 2004, 602 posts, RR: 1 Reply 20, posted (3 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 11352 times:
Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 18): Nah - they'll be hung, drawn and quartered in accordance with the demands of a.netters.
thank the gods that the real world does not have to live up to our standards.
Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 17): Sorry, but there is no excuse. I work daily with heavy equipment for mining and explosive material. We have a procedure to follow before leaving a vehicle alone : * Panel Check ( lights, signals, gear position ). Parking Brake. Engine Off. Energy off (switch the energy from batteries off ). Lock Out.* . One could expect that, in a major airport, people driving trucks and vans around planes filled with potentially hundreds of souls on board, must follow AT LEAST the basic "Parking Brake - Engine Off" sequence. Is not that hard.
An individual drove the van in question and hit a Citation X forward of the door, he was not fired because of the faulty indicator.
"I use multi-billion dollar military satellite systems to find tupperware in the woods."
YTZ From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 1482 posts, RR: 23 Reply 21, posted (3 months 6 days ago) and read 10743 times:
Thank heavens that van hadn't left any kind of debris on the runway.
When in doubt, overshoot. Far better to be wondering what happened during the missed, then on the ground wondering why your braking action is poor as you skid across the threshold.
YTZ From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 1482 posts, RR: 23 Reply 22, posted (3 months 6 days ago) and read 10626 times:
Quoting NBGSkyGod (Reply 20): An individual drove the van in question and hit a Citation X forward of the door, he was not fired because of the faulty indicator.
Did his van also roll across the active with an aircraft on final?
Though, if the van was faulty, I hope Sunwing gets a massive fine from the TSB.
longhauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4315 posts, RR: 36 Reply 23, posted (3 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 9959 times:
As is common with "Human factors" incidents, blaming one person usually does not solve the problem, allowing it to happen again. One could say ... "yup, pilot error or ATC error ... next", but then the issue WILL happen again.
What actually happened was:
AC178 was switched over later than usual from Approach to Tower. This was because Approach was aware of the issue (but didn't tell the pilots) and they weren't sure from where the Go-Around command would come. It is easier for ATC if Approach issues the Go-Around, as they retain control.
When switched over to Tower and checking in, a very rushed go-around command was heard. They thought they had cut off another transmission to another aircraft, as there was no call sign and it was being said as soon as they released the mic PTT. One would be loath to transmit again, as then you might block the call again (to the other aircraft). It is not uncommon for one Tower frequency to be controlling three runways.
The next call was garbled and hard to understand. Because of the late handover, by this time, they were on the ground.
In my opinion, two things could have solved this issue, (other than setting the parking brake on the truck)...
Approach should have warned AC178 that there was a possibility of a Go-Around due to runway issues. They usually do when things arise. Normally its being too close to the aircraft ahead.
When switched to Tower, the first transmission from Tower should have been, after a deep breath and pause ... "AIR CANADA 178, Go-Around, Go-Around". Calm, no panic, firm.
Even without an advance warning, there would have been no doubt and no question.
Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
YTZ From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 1482 posts, RR: 23 Reply 25, posted (3 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 10239 times:
longhauler.
If you are in a low-energy state on the approach and you get an overshoot instruction. How challenging is it to overshoot?
Would this have impacted their decision making?
I would think not, but I have seen someone theorize that maybe they were committed to the approach by this point.
From my perspective, controller error for sure in the way he issued the command. And if what you say is true, what the approach controller thinking in not letting the crew know there was a van running across the active! And perhaps the crew should have exercised further precaution. Where I take exception is how people analyze this incident in light of the fortune of no tragedy. We should be looking at it, from the lens of what if we had lost 100 souls.
AC178 was switched over later than usual from Approach to Tower. This was because Approach was aware of the issue (but didn't tell the pilots) and they weren't sure from where the Go-Around command would come. It is easier for ATC if Approach issues the Go-Around, as they retain control.
When switched over to Tower and checking in, a very rushed go-around command was heard. They thought they had cut off another transmission to another aircraft, as there was no call sign and it was being said as soon as they released the mic PTT. One would be loath to transmit again, as then you might block the call again (to the other aircraft). It is not uncommon for one Tower frequency to be controlling three runways.
The next call was garbled and hard to understand. Because of the late handover, by this time, they were on the ground.
Longhauler, sorry for this ( maybe dumb? ) question, but, according to the sequence of transmissions you are providing, then they landed without clearance. From your post I see a hand over from Approach to Tower Frequency, but I don't see the "AC178 Clear to land" in any part.... Am I missing something ??
sprout5199 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1783 posts, RR: 2 Reply 27, posted (3 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 10078 times:
Quoting cjg225 (Reply 10): "How do you think that call was for someone else? Or was that just an excuse that you weren't paying attention at all?"
Quoting PHX787 (Reply 11): Sounds like the controller just said "178" without including AC in the callsign...while I think they would have gotten the message if the controller said AC in his callsign to that flight, since they were the only 178 landing at that time I would think they would've heard it too.
As a student pilot i'll put my 2 cents in. If I am on short final and hear a call of go-around, I'm going around. End of story. Doesn't matter if the tower said my call sign or not. Much better to do a go around and have it for someone else than not go around and crash because I continued to land.
twincessna340a From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 23 posts, RR: 0 Reply 29, posted (3 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 9388 times:
Quoting sprout5199 (Reply 27): Doesn't matter if the tower said my call sign or not. Much better to do a go around and have it for someone else than not go around and crash because I continued to land.
What if that occurred at an airport that had intersecting runways? The other a/c gets the GA instruction, which you then do just b/c you heard GA and the result is a midair which the blame would fall upon you. Sounds to me you need to improve your situational awareness skills, and as always with ATC.....WHEN IN DOUBT ASK
longhauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4315 posts, RR: 36 Reply 30, posted (3 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 9384 times:
Quoting YTZ (Reply 25): If you are in a low-energy state on the approach and you get an overshoot instruction. How challenging is it to overshoot?
A low engergy Go-Around although harder than a normal go-around is practised in the simulator at least once every cycle, which is approximately 16 months. It is not all that difficult, as long as ground contact (common) doesn't startle you. My impression is that the biggest learning item is how very long it takes a high bypass ratio engine to go from idle thrust to TOGA thrust.
Quoting YTZ (Reply 25):
Would this have impacted their decision making?
I wouldn't think so. The only caveat, is that once reverse is selected then landing is mandatory.
Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 26): Longhauler, sorry for this ( maybe dumb? ) question, but, according to the sequence of transmissions you are providing, then they landed without clearance.
No such thing as a dumb question. In this case, not at all. That is why I do not say this is entirely an ATC error. That is the impression I get as well, although landing clearance may have been issued before the tape started. And that is why this is a Human Factors incident.
Aircraft land without landing clearance all the time. The big problem is that sometimes landing clearance comes 10 miles on final! or 5 miles! or 20 feet! It is not uncommon for ATC to forget if landing clearance is issued, or for the pilots to forget if its issued. If someone asks ... cool. If both assume its issued, actually its fine, as both don't see any conflict. Also, remember that in most of the time a Go-Around command by ATC comes after a landing clearance is already issued.
Quoting sprout5199 (Reply 27): If I am on short final and hear a call of go-around, I'm going around.
That depends where one flies. If two aircraft go-around where Departure was expecting one, problems can arise. Especially if the go-around command was for the aircraft behind you, and was instructed to go-around because he was catching up to you. Then you end up with a formation go-around .... not good.
Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
A346Dude From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 1200 posts, RR: 8 Reply 31, posted (3 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 9184 times:
I find it incredible that this incident happened. A runaway vehicle is moving across the apron, tower is aware of it, but they wait way too long to inform the landing aircraft and then garble the go-around instruction. The landing crew hears at least some portion of the instruction but ignores it, even though logically there was a pretty good chance it was for them.
At least 3 groups of people made mistakes of varying severity and it could have cost a lot of lives. I realize hindsight is 20/20, and this probably all happened very quickly, but there are a lot of questions. Did the Embraer land without a clearance? Why did the tower allow an aircraft to get so low before issuing a go-around instruction it knew might be required for some time? Why didn't they clearly indicate who the instruction was for when they did issue it? Why didn't tower or approach, or both, broadcast the fact that a van was moving uncontrollably and give its current position and direction?
By the way, if the van was a Ford E-Series, I have put one of those into park before, got out, and had it start to roll on me. Not under power, but it does indicate to me there is a potential problem with the shifter column. Of course setting the parking brake would have prevented this incident.
You know the gear is up and locked when it takes full throttle to taxi to the terminal.
tribird1011 From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 183 posts, RR: 0 Reply 32, posted (3 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 9134 times:
Quoting YTZ (Reply 28): Here's the thing though. If you are in a transport category aircraft and are in a low-energy state, it can be hazardous to go around
Generally true, however you should be able to go around at any point during the approach up to and including touchdown (it has been widely discussed here that you are committed to landing only after spoilers/thrust reversers deploy - individual airline policies may vary, but that is the general consensus)
-- from a training point of view: expect an engine failure on every take-off, just as well expect a missed approach on every landing - this does not mean that it will happen, but you must be ready for it on every take-off/landing, because the one time you don't prepare for it, will be the one time you'll need to execute one --
Regarding approaches during low-energy states (longhauler, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), but I was under the impression that transport category aircraft did not approach with idle power due to the relatively long spool up times required in the event of a go-around (I believe there were a few B727's that plowed into the ground because of idle approaches requiring a go around - on props, power application is more or less immediate).
I believe that transport aircraft approach with such a high power setting that an oversimplified go around procedure just call for raising the flaps (obviously you're going to increase power as well, but the power setting should be high enough that when you remove the drag - raise flaps - the aircraft should be producing enough power to at least hold altitude, if not even a gradual climb.
The other interesting point which Gonzalo brings up is that if AC was instructed to go around twice (I haven't heard the ATC recordings so I'm not going to comment if the instructions were clear or not), and they were unsure if it was for them, they never got a clearance to land - regardless if there's something going on on the runway or not, if they didn't get their landing clearance, they shouldn't have landed.
Quite an interesting incident, for sure, and gladly everything turned out ok (except for the natural paperwork/disciplinary action-if any-and possble retraining for whoever) at least everybody was able to make it home that night!!
longhauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4315 posts, RR: 36 Reply 33, posted (3 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 9130 times:
Quoting YTZ (Reply 28): I'd like to know what the E190 manuals says about low-energy states.
All transport aircraft use the same parameters as you note from the Transport Canada website.
Procedures are slightly different from a normal Go-Around. Here, the PF uses the term "Firewall", instead of "Go-Around, Flaps". This signifies to the PNF that this is not a normal Go-Around, as the thrust levers are firewalled in both cases. Also, it signifies that the aircraft configuration stays the same, instead of retracting flaps to a Go-Around setting.
Normal landing attitude is maintained, and when the engines catch up and speed rises, the aircraft can be rotated to a Go-Around attitude, when the aircraft starts climbing then normal Go-Around SOPs resume. It notes in the manual that ground contact is common.
Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
A346Dude From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 1200 posts, RR: 8 Reply 34, posted (3 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 9090 times:
Quoting twincessna340a (Reply 29): What if that occurred at an airport that had intersecting runways? The other a/c gets the GA instruction, which you then do just b/c you heard GA and the result is a midair which the blame would fall upon you. Sounds to me you need to improve your situational awareness skills, and as always with ATC.....WHEN IN DOUBT ASK
You do realize that aircraft are allowed to go around at any point if they determine the approach has become unstable? There would never be two aircraft landing simultaneously on intersecting runways. In my view, if you are unsure whether a go around instruction was for you or not, and you are so low that there is no time to clarify, it is on balance much safer to assume it was for you and go around.
You know the gear is up and locked when it takes full throttle to taxi to the terminal.
longhauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4315 posts, RR: 36 Reply 35, posted (3 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 9049 times:
Quoting tribird1011 (Reply 32): (it has been widely discussed here that you are committed to landing only after spoilers/thrust reversers deploy - individual airline policies may vary, but that is the general consensus)
Not spoilers, just reverse. Spoilers retract and auto-brake is cancelled as soon as TOGA thrust is commanded.
Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
StarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3229 posts, RR: 9 Reply 36, posted (3 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 8822 times:
Quoting A346Dude (Reply 31): By the way, if the van was a Ford E-Series, I have put one of those into park before, got out, and had it start to roll on me. Not under power, but it does indicate to me there is a potential problem with the shifter column. Of course setting the parking brake would have prevented this incident.
I have found that a lot of drivers whether its a personal vehicle or a commercial one do not use the parking brake it is an automatic.
Quoting tribird1011 (Reply 32): they never got a clearance to land - regardless if there's something going on on the runway or not, if they didn't get their landing clearance, they shouldn't have landed.
They may have got it 10 miles out as longhauler mentioned.
I would assume landing clearance is given and in the case of a normal go around say the proceeding aircraft not getting of the runway in time would lead to one. In this case it was a van and not a plane, the matter is that it is an unforeseen obstruction for a landing.
A346Dude From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 1200 posts, RR: 8 Reply 37, posted (3 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 8785 times:
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 36): They may have got it 10 miles out as longhauler mentioned.
Can approach issue a landing clearance? Because according to longhauler as soon as they switched to tower frequency the go around instruction was issued.
You know the gear is up and locked when it takes full throttle to taxi to the terminal.
longhauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4315 posts, RR: 36 Reply 38, posted (3 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 8776 times:
Quoting A346Dude (Reply 34): In my view, if you are unsure whether a go around instruction was for you or not, and you are so low that there is no time to clarify, it is on balance much safer to assume it was for you and go around.
Only if you are on different runways. As you accurately note, go-around is always an option, even if more than one runway is being used. But ... as I note above, a serious issue can arise if two aircraft are going around from the same runway!
Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
bueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 547 posts, RR: 0 Reply 39, posted (3 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 8767 times:
Quoting sprout5199 (Reply 27): If I am on short final and hear a call of go-around, I'm going around. End of story.
Potentially a dangerous situation. What if the GA instruction was because someone bigger than you was cutting you up from behind, so you decide to GA to and climb into their path?
And this is certainly not the answer in the case of airline operations. What if you have 3, 4, or more a/c on approach at one time (as you often can), and there's a go around call made, so all of them decide to go around? Total chaos, and not something you really want.
If the go around call isn't for you and you have no other reason to GA, it's safest to continue.
thenoflyzone From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 1976 posts, RR: 11 Reply 40, posted (3 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 7797 times:
Quoting A346Dude (Reply 37): Can approach issue a landing clearance?
Very rare but can happen, and certainly not at 10 miles final. In YYZ, the approach controller usually instructs the aircraft to contact tower at the FAF inbound (roughly 4 miles final), meaning if the approach controller forgot to issue said instruction, or if the plane forgot to switch freq and is still on approach frequency and about to touch down, tower might ask the approach controller to clear him to land.
The landing clearance will only be given when the tower controller coordinates it with the approach controller.
I've done it a few times myself at my airport(s)
Thenoflyzone
us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
RDH3E From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 1079 posts, RR: 0 Reply 41, posted (3 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 7524 times:
Given that they landed safely and the pilots apparently didn't see the Van, I'd bet the Van was off the runway for quite some time, >30 seconds, before the jet even got there.
sprout5199 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1783 posts, RR: 2 Reply 42, posted (3 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 7383 times:
Quoting bueb0g (Reply 39): Potentially a dangerous situation. What if the GA instruction was because someone bigger than you was cutting you up from behind, so you decide to GA to and climb into their path?
If someone bigger than me is catching up, the tower would not issue a go-around, but a course change or climb, as the tower would not know if I need to go around, as when I am on short final the runway ahead/airspace directly above it is mine. And it is up to the aircraft behind me to avoid me, not the other way around. Be it a 172, or an A380. size and speed of other aircraft mean nothing to me when I am on final.
Quoting bueb0g (Reply 39): And this is certainly not the answer in the case of airline operations. What if you have 3, 4, or more a/c on approach at one time (as you often can), and there's a go around call made, so all of them decide to go around? Total chaos, and not something you really want.
I may be mistaken but the only aircraft that that can "go-around" is the one that is cleared to land. I have heard on my scanner, and on ATCnet ATC tell the second one in line "XXX1223 be prepared to go-around" or "do a missed approach(or something like that)" but never "go-around".
Quoting bueb0g (Reply 39): If the go around call isn't for you and you have no other reason to GA, it's safest to continue.
If you are on short final, cleared to land, the words "go-around" means landing clearance revoked, do not land. the words go-around to me means there is something wrong with the runway and if I land I will crash and burn. End of discussion.
A346Dude From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 1200 posts, RR: 8 Reply 43, posted (3 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 7273 times:
Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 40): Very rare but can happen, and certainly not at 10 miles final. In YYZ, the approach controller usually instructs the aircraft to contact tower at the FAF inbound (roughly 4 miles final), meaning if the approach controller forgot to issue said instruction, or if the plane forgot to switch freq and is still on approach frequency and about to touch down, tower might ask the approach controller to clear him to land.
OK thanks. So that means almost certainly the Embraer landed without a clearance after hearing the words "go around" on short final.
You know the gear is up and locked when it takes full throttle to taxi to the terminal.
bueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 547 posts, RR: 0 Reply 44, posted (3 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 6548 times:
Quoting sprout5199 (Reply 42): If someone bigger than me is catching up, the tower would not issue a go-around,
You don't know that.
Quoting sprout5199 (Reply 42): And it is up to the aircraft behind me to avoid me, not the other way around.
As if that matters if you actually had a collision.
Quoting sprout5199 (Reply 42): size and speed of other aircraft mean nothing to me when I am on final.
Well it should, or your situational awareness is lacking.
Quoting sprout5199 (Reply 42): I may be mistaken but the only aircraft that that can "go-around" is the one that is cleared to land.
You are indeed mistaken.
Quoting sprout5199 (Reply 42): If you are on short final, cleared to land, the words "go-around" means landing clearance revoked, do not land. the words go-around to me means there is something wrong with the runway and if I land I will crash and burn. End of discussion.
You seem very confident about something you're quite incorrect on. There are plenty of reasons you could be told to go around - ATC saw you too low on approach, traffic crossing through the extended centreline, a fast aircraft converging on a slower one (and I know about that from experience because I've been the "slower one" before). All of these, if not directed at you, would mean nothing to the safe continuation of the approach.
If you're flying an approach and you hear a go around instruction, but it's not for you (and the Air Canada pilots here didn't think it was for them - remember the context we are discussing here) and, if there is nothing else stopping you from continuing, it is safest for you to do just that. Continue and land. If you truly are unsure about who the instruction was for, and it's too late to ask for clarification (which would only be if you were literally touching down) then OK, going around is probably a decent course of action.
But that is not relevant to this situation. The pilots here thought that the call was not for them - and they were still far enough out to ask for clarification. If you're 2nm out, you hear a GA call and think it isn't for you, then going around yourself (assuming you see nothing that would be cause for a go around) is a silly, if not dangerous, action to take.
A346Dude From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 1200 posts, RR: 8 Reply 45, posted (3 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 5845 times:
Quoting bueb0g (Reply 44): But that is not relevant to this situation. The pilots here thought that the call was not for them - and they were still far enough out to ask for clarification. If you're 2nm out, you hear a GA call and think it isn't for you, then going around yourself (assuming you see nothing that would be cause for a go around) is a silly, if not dangerous, action to take.
Can we please stop suggesting going around is dangerous? This whole discussion reminds me of Joe on Ice Pilots berating his crew for going around when they had an ambiguous gear indication. Going around is a fairly routine maneuver and could be hazardous in only very specific and rare circumstances. We don't need pilots second guessing whether they should be going around.
Had the AC crew been a little less hesitant to go around, we wouldn't have had this near miss (which probably wasn't that near a miss, to be fair). Even if the crew saw the van heading towards the runway, unless it was driving wildly on the grass they would have assumed it would hold short of their runway as most vans do. This is exactly the situation where a crew doesn't notice anything wrong on approach yet is unsure whether a go around instruction was for them. Since the crew clearly didn't have time to clarify (considering they landed on a runway they were instructed to go around on), by your logic they should have gone around.
[Edited 2013-03-15 14:32:28]
You know the gear is up and locked when it takes full throttle to taxi to the terminal.
Maverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 4779 posts, RR: 6 Reply 46, posted (3 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 5762 times:
Quoting sprout5199 (Reply 42): If someone bigger than me is catching up, the tower would not issue a go-around, but a course change or climb, as the tower would not know if I need to go around, as when I am on short final the runway ahead/airspace directly above it is mine.
Incorrect. Local control can (and has and will continue to) issue go-around instructions to whatever aircraft they want. Or are you suggesting that you can ignore their instructions because you feel they're wrong?
I may be mistaken but the only aircraft that that can "go-around" is the one that is cleared to land.
You are definitely mistaken. Any aircraft established on an approach may be told to go around, by any controller.
Quoting sprout5199 (Reply 42): "do a missed approach(or something like that)" but never "go-around".
They are synonymous terms. When the words "go around" are said, the aircraft is expected to execute the missed approach procedures or follow any further instructions given by ATC.
Usually, the command to go-around is given when the aircraft is on final approach, and further out the controller will just give a new altitude and/or heading assignment and cancel the approach clearance.
JAGflyer From Canada, joined Aug 2004, 3328 posts, RR: 4 Reply 47, posted (3 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 5736 times:
Quoting A346Dude (Reply 31): By the way, if the van was a Ford E-Series, I have put one of those into park before, got out, and had it start to roll on me. Not under power, but it does indicate to me there is a potential problem with the shifter column. Of course setting the parking brake would have prevented this incident.
It is possible to as a fluke of nature accidentally put the shifter in a position between P and R as I have done it before (however I was in the vehicle so it did not go anywhere). All it takes is the wind to blow the wrong way, a small movement of the ground (ie. another vehicle going by) and the shifter pops down into the reverse detent. Unless the shifter is engaged in one of the detents (P, R, N, D, etc) it theoretically can slip out. I'm sure it will be investigated either way.
Supported the beer and soda can industry, recycle old airplanes!
Maverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 4779 posts, RR: 6 Reply 48, posted (3 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 5714 times:
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 36): I have found that a lot of drivers whether its a personal vehicle or a commercial one do not use the parking brake it is an automatic.
That's fine if you're on a level road and the transmission actually locks.
I personally think it's a bad idea to use the transmission as a "kickstand".
Sean-SAN- From United States of America, joined Aug 2002, 752 posts, RR: 1 Reply 49, posted (3 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 5739 times:
This is one annoying thing as an American pilot who flies quite often to YYZ and YUL.. the approach controllers often switch you very late to tower and the tower also waits til the last possible second to clear you to land, often for no apparent reason (perhaps they have special requirements to issue a landing clearance..)
In large US airports you usually switch to tower control 10-20nm outside of the airport and can be cleared to land with multiple planes in front of you yet to land.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21679 posts, RR: 23 Reply 50, posted (3 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 5654 times:
Excerpt from Transport Canada occurrence report on the date of the incident.
The Air Canada Embraer ERJ-190-100-IGW aircraft (operating as flight ACA178) was concluding a scheduled IFR flight from Edmonton International Airport (CYEG) to Toronto (LBPIA) (CYYZ). The Sunwing Airlines Inc. Boeing 737-8K5 aircraft (C-FTLK) was parked at Gate H16 being serviced. NAV CANADA staff at Toronto Tower reported that ACA178 was on a 3/4NM final for runway 24R when an airside surface detection equipment (ASDE) target was observed on the threshold of runway 24R. The ACA178 flight crew was instructed twice (2x) to pull up and go around. However, the aircraft continued and landed on runway 24R without incident. The ASDE target was then observed proceeding onto taxiway DELTA7 and into the grass on the east side. The ACA178 flight crew was queried about receiving the pull up instructions and the observed target and their response was that they thought the instruction was for someone else. The flight crew did not report seeing anything. The Tower Controller requested an inspection and an unoccupied Sunwing Airlines Inc. van was found with the engine running, engaged in gear, south of the threshold of runway 24R and just east of taxiway DELTA7. Greater Toronto Airport Authority (G.T.A.A.) staff advised that the operator of the unoccupied van was servicing a Sunwing Airlines Inc. aircraft at Gate H16. The driver had came out of the aircraft to discover that the van was missing. The unoccupied van caused minor damage to the Boeing 737-8K5 aircraft's #1 engine cowling.
Quoting A346Dude (Reply 34): There would never be two aircraft landing simultaneously on intersecting runways.
bueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 547 posts, RR: 0 Reply 51, posted (3 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 5538 times:
Quoting A346Dude (Reply 45): Can we please stop suggesting going around is dangerous?
Don't twist what I said. I never said going around was dangerous. I said that if a go around call is made and it isn't for you (and this crew thought it wasn't) then, as long as everything else is in order, it is a safer course of action to continue the landing.
Quoting A346Dude (Reply 45): Had the AC crew been a little less hesitant to go around,
We don't know the crew were hesitant to go around. Hearing a go around call that you don't think is for you isn't being hesitant to go around, it's mishearing the call. By your logic, a crew is "hesitant" to go around if they hear a go around instruction on their frequency that isn't for them, and they don't go around themselves.
Quoting A346Dude (Reply 45): Since the crew clearly didn't have time to clarify (considering they landed on a runway they were instructed to go around on), by your logic they should have gone around.
You either haven't read my comments, or you haven't understood this event. The crew had plenty of time to clarify. They didn't think they had to however, because they didn't think the calls were for them.
warden145 From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 434 posts, RR: 0 Reply 52, posted (3 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 5351 times:
Quoting A346Dude (Reply 31): By the way, if the van was a Ford E-Series, I have put one of those into park before, got out, and had it start to roll on me. Not under power, but it does indicate to me there is a potential problem with the shifter column. Of course setting the parking brake would have prevented this incident.
I'm honestly surprised that the guy didn't set the parking brake. I'm a commercial driver, and I've been out on the ramps at more than one airport...and, on every ramp I've ever been on, a standard ground-rule is that the parking brake is required to be applied before stepping out of the vehicle, and they're pretty strict about that at least at the FBO ramps. Even in a "safe" situation off a ramp, I won't get out of the driver's seat unless the parking brake's applied. It honestly amazes me that so few people use the parking brake...OTOH I'm a big fan of redundancies...
BTW, I drive E-series vans on a regular basis, and with how sloppy the transmission shift levers are on these vans, I'm not surprised. OTOH the Park pawl in the transmission could have failed. Still not an excuse for not using the parking brake.
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 36): I have found that a lot of drivers whether its a personal vehicle or a commercial one do not use the parking brake it is an automatic.
That, unfortunately, is correct. Going back on-topic, frankly I'm of the opinion that the person responsible for the van deserves to lose his job over that one...
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 48): I personally think it's a bad idea to use the transmission as a "kickstand".
Thank you! I know it's common practice, but if people look at the piece of pot metal used on automatic transmissions as a "park pawl", they wouldn't trust it with a 10' pole. There's a reason why automatic transmissions on larger commercial vehicles don't have a "Park" setting on the transmission.
A346Dude From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 1200 posts, RR: 8 Reply 53, posted (3 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 5345 times:
Quoting bueb0g (Reply 51): I said that if a go around call is made and it isn't for you (and this crew thought it wasn't) then, as long as everything else is in order, it is a safer course of action to continue the landing.
I can't think of a better example than this incident itself to demonstrate why that thinking is wrong. Obviously if you know the call isn't for you then you won't go around; in any case other than 100% sure the call isn't for you, you should clarify or go around if there is not enough time.
[Edited 2013-03-15 16:30:27]
You know the gear is up and locked when it takes full throttle to taxi to the terminal.
bueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 547 posts, RR: 0 Reply 55, posted (3 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 5278 times:
Quoting A346Dude (Reply 53): in any case other than 100% sure the call isn't for you, you should clarify or go around if there is not enough time.
I agree entirely. There's no question about that. This line of discussion started when someone posted "If I am on short final and hear a call of go-around, I'm going around. End of story. Doesn't matter if the tower said my call sign or not." Which is not a particularly good attitude - he's saying he'd go around even if he knew the call wasn't actually for him, which is not a prudent course of action unless there is something that would clearly warrant a go around. He also seems to have an incomplete understanding of what a go around is. I'm not saying the crew's actions were correct, I'm saying that a go around irregardless of who the call was meant for is silly and potentially a danger. If this crew had any doubt about whether they GA was for them, they should have asked for a clarification. I don't think that we are actually disagreeing over anything here.
Quoting A346Dude (Reply 53): I can't think of a better example than this incident itself to demonstrate why that thinking is wrong.
Kind of, but you're approaching that logic backwards. The answer here is for crew to be more vigilant of possible instructions to them and clarify any uncertainty, not to act on an instruction they perceived to be for someone else.
threepoint From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 2093 posts, RR: 8 Reply 56, posted (3 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 5144 times:
Quoting fca767 (Reply 13): the atc said it very softly and added too many other words.
I wonder what words you considered superfluous? "178 pull up and go around sir" is not a rambling instruction, although I admit the controller conveyed no sense of urgency in either of his attempts.
The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.
m1m2 From Canada, joined Dec 2011, 59 posts, RR: 0 Reply 57, posted (3 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 4490 times:
warden145
"I'm honestly surprised that the guy didn't set the parking brake."
Setting the parking brake is definitely a good policy, but here in Canada in the winter they have a very nasty habit of not releasing when you want to disengane it. Not saying this justifies not using it, just putting it out there.
cyeg66 From Canada, joined Feb 2011, 167 posts, RR: 1 Reply 58, posted (3 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4321 times:
Quoting A346Dude (Reply 34): There would never be two aircraft landing simultaneously on intersecting runways.
Wrong. Been to YYC lately? I've seen the old dual go-around a time or two. One unexpected go around (some years ago) involved 2 departures and 1 missed approach that was turned to "split the uprights". It looked fantastic on radar. The go-around was an A332.
[Edited 2013-03-16 10:55:36]
slow to 160, contact tower, slow to 160, contact tower, slow to....ZZZZZZZ......
pnwtraveler From Canada, joined Jun 2007, 2057 posts, RR: 12 Reply 59, posted (3 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 4139 times:
I listen to ATC often at YYZ and have never heard an aircraft pass "to the Tower late." The aircraft always calls the Tower at the beacon. Now clearance to land can be given immediately at the beacon if it is quiet and that is a bit of a ways out from the thresh hold. Or actual clearance to land can sometimes be held until a bit further if the runway is in use.
Late at night and depending on volume, one controller can handle both approach runways if 2 are still in use. More often however one runway is used for departures and one for arrivals. And even later all service is usually on a single runway unless there is a reason to still need two, such as a longer runway requested due to a heavy load. Etihad often asks to use the longest runway for example. That is registered most often on the Clearance frequency that is up to 30 mintues to just before pushback and then reiterated at pushback when taxi instructions are given again.
What is clear to me is that serious accidents happen when a series of minor mistakes compound into a major event.
1. The Controller was at fault for not issuing a better and clearer set of go around instructions. It was a lazy or sloppy order.
2. The aircraft was at fault for not asking about the go-round order, and should know the procedures at that time of night if they are a regular AC crew. There could be a dozen reasons for a "Go Round" order and controllers don't have time to give a reason. Simply saying they didn't see an obstruction, or assumed it was someone else when the number was the same as their flight is not acceptable. Would be a pretty massive coincidence to have an AC flight and another flight with a 3 number flight the same.
3. And no comment what so ever for the van driver's stupidity.
Had things turned out slightly different with slightly different timing, there would have been loss of life. All the excuses people are making is mind boggling.
Well IIRC if I'm on final, cleared to land it is MY runway, everybody else has to wait. Now I have been ASKED to do a 360 so an airliner can land on 9L when I was on final on 9R at PBI(before they changed runway numbers). He was coming up on me real quick and would have gotten an RA soon. So I did a 360 to the south and everything was fine. Had I said UNABLE, ATC would have sent the airliner around(he was cleared to land also) or some other resolution.
Quoting bueb0g (Reply 44): As if that matters if you actually had a collision.
Nice snide remark, adds a lot to the conversation.
Quoting bueb0g (Reply 44): Well it should, or your situational awareness is lacking.
When I am on final, my situational awareness is on my alt., speed, aim point, and winds, NOT on an aircraft behind me. IF there is a crossing runway I do quick glance to see if there is an aircraft arr/dep on that runway.
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 46): Incorrect. Local control can (and has and will continue to) issue go-around instructions to whatever aircraft they want. Or are you suggesting that you can ignore their instructions because you feel they're wrong?
Well, what I was saying is that ATC will not make me go around because faster traffic is coming up behind me. They would tell the other guy to climb, turn slow down or something. And speaking of ignoring instructions, that exactly what happened in this case.
Quoting bueb0g (Reply 55): Which is not a particularly good attitude - he's saying he'd go around even if he knew the call wasn't actually for him, which is not a prudent course of action unless there is something that would clearly warrant a go around. He also seems to have an incomplete understanding of what a go around is.
Well sir, since that was my statement, I will address it. You do not know what a go-around is. When conditions are deemed unsafe for landing a go-around is called for, be it initiated by me or the tower. I have done many go-arounds, all self initiated due to gusts of wind, too high, helicopter hover-taxing onto the runway when I was on short final, etc, etc.
And I said
Quoting sprout5199 (Reply 27): If I am on short final and hear a call of go-around, I'm going around. End of story. Doesn't matter if the tower said my call sign or not.
That is not the same as me knowing that it wasn't for me. If I am on short final at PBI in my 150 and hear DELTA1234 go around, I know I am still cleared to land. If I hear just the words go-around, I am going around, as I do not know reason, as the tower is looking at things that I can not see, like a truck crossing the runway in the dark, or spotting debris on the runway. In no way shape or form is a go-around dangerous, as it is a maneuver that is taught right from the start. Big Iron may have different procedures and when a go-around can't be done. I don't know about that as I fly a Cessna 150M. And I will go-around when ever I feel there is a reason to, even if that reason is not apparent to me at the time(tower says go-around, even though the runway looks clear).
In my opinion , the AC pilots took an unnecessary risk by landing. It could easily been us discussing how stupid they were by not going around and crashing into a van that rolled onto the active runway.
I am done with this discussion. I have had my flying skills called into question by people who have never heard of me much less seen me fly. Therefore I will let all you guys hash this out, and will not add anything more.
Maverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 4779 posts, RR: 6 Reply 61, posted (3 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3859 times:
Quoting sprout5199 (Reply 60): Well IIRC if I'm on final, cleared to land it is MY runway, everybody else has to wait.
I don't know why you keep saying this, because it is simply not true. At a towered airport, the runway is under the control of the tower, NOT you. If the tower wants or needs to get someone else off or on before you, you WILL go around.
Quoting sprout5199 (Reply 60): Had I said UNABLE, ATC would have sent the airliner around(he was cleared to land also) or some other resolution.
Oh, you talked to the controller afterwards? What if the airplane behind you was a medical inbound, or had mechanical difficulties?
Quoting sprout5199 (Reply 60):
Well, what I was saying is that ATC will not make me go around because faster traffic is coming up behind me.
I dare you to say that to a DPE or FSDO inspector.
Quoting sprout5199 (Reply 60): I have had my flying skills called into question by people who have never heard of me much less seen me fly.
Let us hope your arrogance doesn't get you or someone else killed someday.
Gonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1690 posts, RR: 0 Reply 62, posted (3 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3717 times:
Quoting sprout5199 (Reply 60): Well IIRC if I'm on final, cleared to land it is MY runway
Quoting sprout5199 (Reply 60): Had I said UNABLE, ATC would have sent the airliner around(he was cleared to land also) or some other resolution.
Oh sure, you can push the things all you want, I mean, if you decide to refuse the instructions, there is no practical actions that the ATC guy or the pilot behind you can take.....but I can tell you that a person wearing a FAA jacket will "invite you to talk" soon. You need to accept that, when you are using an airspace, you are not alone up there, and you must be prepared to be flexible, and contribute to the overall safety.
Quoting sprout5199 (Reply 60): When I am on final, my situational awareness is on my alt., speed, aim point, and winds, NOT on an aircraft behind me. IF there is a crossing runway I do quick glance to see if there is an aircraft arr/dep on that runway.
That's OK. But is not the only thing you need to be aware of. There are a lot of incidents and accidents in history with one of the main factors being a pilot not knowing, or caring, about where are the others and what are they doing.
Quoting sprout5199 (Reply 60): In no way shape or form is a go-around dangerous, as it is a maneuver that is taught right from the start.
Correct,*the maneuver* should always be a very well known procedure. But If you Go Around when in fact no one needed that ( not you, not ATC, not other pilot requesting priority ), you are just wasting a stabilized approach, time, fuel, and your energy, by doing something that simply no one needs. If you are going around every time you hear that words in the radio, without knowing with certainty that the call was for you, there is the chance that you can cause unnecessary problems to others, without any reasonable justification.
Quoting sprout5199 (Reply 60): I am done with this discussion. I have had my flying skills called into question by people who have never heard of me much less seen me fly. Therefore I will let all you guys hash this out, and will not add anything more.
I'm sure no one wants to offend you or anything like that. This is a BIG community with literally thousands of people, and there is always space for disagreement, no matter if you fly a Cessna 150 or the Concorde. The best way to deal with that is having an open mind , being prepared to be criticized ( and even attacked some times, I can tell you first hand ) and always keeping a window for the dialogue open.
sprout5199 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1783 posts, RR: 2 Reply 63, posted (3 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3335 times:
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 61): I don't know why you keep saying this, because it is simply not true. At a towered airport, the runway is under the control of the tower, NOT you. If the tower wants or needs to get someone else off or on before you, you WILL go around.
Well, considering that the AC crew that did not go-around, which is it? Yes, if the tower tells me to go-around I will, but if it so a "faster aircraft" can land instead of me, I will be calling the tower and having a talk to them. See FAR 91.113(a)(g).
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 61): Oh, you talked to the controller afterwards? What if the airplane behind you was a medical inbound, or had mechanical difficulties?
Oh I like this. The hidden med flight or emergency that the tower had no clue of. Really, that is your argument?
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 61): I dare you to say that to a DPE or FSDO inspector.
See FAR 91.113(a)(g).
Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 62): Oh sure, you can push the things all you want, I mean, if you decide to refuse the instructions, there is no practical actions that the ATC guy or the pilot behind you can take.....but I can tell you that a person wearing a FAA jacket will "invite you to talk" soon. You need to accept that, when you are using an airspace, you are not alone up there, and you must be prepared to be flexible, and contribute to the overall safety.
Please see FAR 91.3 I do not need to accept any clearance that I feel will endanger me. PERIOD. As pilot in command I HAVE FINAL AUTHORITY.
Guys please review the following FARS and AIM. 91.113(f)(g), 91.123(a)(b)c), 91.3, AIM 5-4-26, 4-4-1, 6-1-1.
Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 62): If you are going around every time you hear that words in the radio, without knowing with certainty that the call was for you, there is the chance that you can cause unnecessary problems to others, without any reasonable justification.
That's your opinion, I respect that, however, I would much rather go-around 100 times but it was not "really" needed, than to not go-around once when needed. It's just gas, time, and wear and tear on the aircraft, not lives.
Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 62): I'm sure no one wants to offend you or anything like that. This is a BIG community with literally thousands of people, and there is always space for disagreement, no matter if you fly a Cessna 150 or the Concorde. The best way to deal with that is having an open mind , being prepared to be criticized ( and even attacked some times, I can tell you first hand ) and always keeping a window for the dialogue open.
Guys, I may be a student pilot, with--just checked my log book--85.1 total, 15.1 solo since 2003(have kids, see how long it takes you to get your license) and I freely admit I don't know everything. However some of the things that have been brought up are quite frankly stupid. Some have made me think. I took the things said as personal, and shouldn't have. As I have said above, and has been drilled into me since day one of flight training, as PIC I have final authority, and if that means I go-around when a gnat farts, so be it, at the end of the flight I get to see my girls. And that's the end of my story.
BTW a good landing is when you can walk away, a great landing is when you can use the airplane again. So far, all great landings(just glad they weren't on video).
Dan in Jupiter
N-45326 in case you are flying here in south Florida, say hello, or change course, up to you.
PassedV1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 156 posts, RR: 0 Reply 64, posted (3 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2938 times:
Just a couple of thoughts...
1. AC is cleared to land at the very begginning of the clip.
2. A Go-Around is not a dangerous maneuver in and of itself, however, it can put you in a more dangerous situation i.e...fuel state.
3. The pilot says he thought the call was for someone else, he's looking down at his runway and there is no apparent reason to expect a go around so he ignores it. Additionally, it's not even clear he heard the "go-around", if its not clear the transmission is for you you just ignore it. Late at night when they start combining frequencies it's hard to keep your SA up because you are hearing a lot of "half" conversations and it is very common to have transmissions that make no sense as you often cannot hear the other airplane.
4. I would also point out that what is recorded on live atc is not necessarilly what the pilots "heard" as there are a lot of other things going on. From where they were on the approach I bet the EGPWS was yacking (five-hundred or MINIMUMS MINIMUMS) or also likely they were in the middle of completing there landing checking..not to mention there was probably yacking on the company frequency.
5. The procedure in this situation should lead to the controller trying to shoot the plane with a light-gun...it's not stated if this was tried.
6. A pickup truck on the runway threshold is not REALLY that big a deal. Although I do think safety was compromised, to imply that they barely got away with their lives is just being overly dramatic. An airliner shoots for the 1,000 foot point and typically touches down 1,500' - 3,000' down the runway...it was not that close.
Quoting sprout5199 (Reply 60): Well, what I was saying is that ATC will not make me go around because faster traffic is coming up behind me.
longhauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4315 posts, RR: 36 Reply 65, posted (3 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2740 times:
Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 64): 4. I would also point out that what is recorded on live atc is not necessarily what the pilots "heard" as there are a lot of other things going on. From where they were on the approach I bet the EGPWS was yacking (five-hundred or MINIMUMS MINIMUMS) or also likely they were in the middle of completing there landing checking..not to mention there was probably yacking on the company frequency.
In my opinion, this is the main focus of the investigation from the airplane point of view. What was going on in the cockpit?
As you correctly state, the ATC tape only shows one side of the story. The CVR will show the other side. Were the pilots distracted by auto-callouts, SOP calls, ACARS data or company calls?
Quoting sprout5199 (Reply 63): I took the things said as personal, and shouldn't have.
This is one of the basic tenets of CRM. What is right, is far more important than Who is right.
People are responding to what you write. They are not saying YOU are wrong, that are saying what you stated is wrong. There is a big difference.
There is a lot of experience on this site, and I personally I have learned a lot reading here. So when people suggest something you wrote is wrong, you don't take it personally ... you step back, take a deep breath, read what they say, and try to consider it unemotionally.
I think the one thing that bothers people on here, is when you state, you would do a go-around, even though the instruction was not for you ... just in case. That is not a good idea. Understand, they are not saying it is wrong to do a go-around for any reason you feel a landing is unsafe, (that is a good idea). They are saying that in some busy airport environments, two aircraft going around when departure was expecting one can have issues. And ... the biggest problem would be, if the go-around instruction was for the aircraft behind you, and ... you were the reason it was instructed to go-around!
Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
bueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 547 posts, RR: 0 Reply 66, posted (3 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2661 times:
Quoting sprout5199 (Reply 60): Had I said UNABLE, ATC would have sent the airliner around(he was cleared to land also) or some other resolution.
That is *precisely* my point. That if the a/c behind you was told to go around and despite everything else being totally fine you go "he said go around, so I'm going around too" then you potentially have a dangerous situation.
Quoting sprout5199 (Reply 60): Nice snide remark, adds a lot to the conversation.
Not a snide remark at all. My point is that being concerned with whose responsibility something is becomes totally irrelevant (to yours, and others, well-being) if you have an accident. If you go around in front of someone and they hit you, OK, it may be that other pilot's responsibility to avoid you, but you still got hit, and you could have avoided it.
Quoting sprout5199 (Reply 60): When I am on final, my situational awareness is on my alt., speed, aim point, and winds, NOT on an aircraft behind me.
Then maybe it should be..?
Quoting sprout5199 (Reply 60): Well, what I was saying is that ATC will not make me go around because faster traffic is coming up behind me.
That's true. But they will make the one behind go around, and then if you decide to do the same *just because*, you're taking an unnecessary risk...
Quoting sprout5199 (Reply 60): That is not the same as me knowing that it wasn't for me. If I am on short final at PBI in my 150 and hear DELTA1234 go around, I know I am still cleared to land.
But that's not what you said. You said that if you heard "go around" then you would go around, even if your callsign wasn't used. That implies that even if you know the call isn't for you, you'd still go around which, if there is nothing else to stop you continuing the approach, is not a totally great thing to do. Now you've said something contradictory - "If I am on short final at PBI in my 150 and hear DELTA1234 go around, I know I am still cleared to land" - so which is it? Are you saying (as you initially stated) that you would go around regardless of who the call was for, or, as you are now saying, would you continue if you thought the call wasn't for you? I am a little confused by this because your original attitude, although incorrect in my opinion, was it least relevant to this incident. What you've just said challenges that - the Air Canada crew (mistakenly, admittedly) thought the call wasn't for them. By your old logic, they should have gone around. By your new logic, they should have landed. Which is it?
Quoting sprout5199 (Reply 60): I have had my flying skills called into question by people who have never heard of me much less seen me fly.
Firstly, nobody called your flying skills into question. If anything, people called your judgement into question, and more specifically, the judgements you posted here which I feel is totally fair. We cannot judge how you actually fly, but we can judge what you have written on this forum - if you didn't want it to be judged, you didn't have to post it.
Quoting longhauler (Reply 65): I think the one thing that bothers people on here, is when you state, you would do a go-around, even though the instruction was not for you ... just in case. That is not a good idea. Understand, they are not saying it is wrong to do a go-around for any reason you feel a landing is unsafe, (that is a good idea). They are saying that in some busy airport environments, two aircraft going around when departure was expecting one can have issues. And ... the biggest problem would be, if the go-around instruction was for the aircraft behind you, and ... you were the reason it was instructed to go-around!
thenoflyzone From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 1976 posts, RR: 11 Reply 67, posted (3 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2496 times:
Quoting cyeg66 (Reply 58):
Wrong. Been to YYC lately? I've seen the old dual go-around a time or two. One unexpected go around (some years ago) involved 2 departures and 1 missed approach that was turned to "split the uprights". It looked fantastic on radar. The go-around was an A332.
poor ole' KLM !
I saw a good airshow like that a while back at YUL.
a 744 was on short final for 24R, while a 77W was late to begin its takeoff roll from the same runway. TWR issued a go around to the 744. Suffice to say he passed right on top of our ops room at 1500ft climbing ! (I was sitting in the sub-unit and heard him loud and clear).
So as i'm feeling the floor vibrate beneath my feet (literally!), I told myself that has to be an overshoot off 24R ! Looked on the radar screen, and sure enough, it was ! Went over to the boys at UL and said, "who ****ed up" ! They all chuckled...Of course they had no clue as to the specifics of the overshoot since the plane had already been switched to TWR for a few minutes by then, and the plane still hadn't contacted them on the overshoot.
Thenoflyzone
[Edited 2013-03-18 12:03:51]
us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
yyz757fan From Canada, joined Feb 2005, 91 posts, RR: 0 Reply 68, posted (3 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2450 times:
Getting back to the root cause of this incident. All of this would have been prevented in the driver of the Sunwing van had followed simple GTAA policy for driving on the aprons at YYZ. First, you never leave a vehicle running unattended while running into an aircraft to perform service work. Second, when parking a vehicle on the ramp it is supposed to be reversed into a parking spot with the back end towards the terminal, fence etc. If the van had been parked properly there would have been no chance for it to start rolling onto the active runway. Whether it was due to a worn gear selector or negligence on the part of the driver in not putting the vehicle properly into park, he is ultimately responsible for this incident. If he had parked the vehicle properly and it popped into reverse due to a worn gear selector, it would have at worst, rolled into the terminal building or some other fixed objects nearby instead of rolling a considerable distance out onto the runway. While some people may call for the Sunwing employee's head on a plater, I suspect that he will have his airside drivers licence immediately revoked and will be suspended pending the investigation and retraining on the AVOP rules. While this incident is rare , it is not the first time it has occurred at YYZ. While working as a Police Officer at YYZ I investigated two similar Incidents which thankfully resulted only in minor damage to vehicles and not to any aircraft. This an important lesson to be learned for anyone working on an airport ramp.
sprout5199 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1783 posts, RR: 2 Reply 69, posted (3 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2087 times:
Quoting bueb0g (Reply 66): But that's not what you said. You said that if you heard "go around" then you would go around, even if your callsign wasn't used. That implies that even if you know the call isn't for you, you'd still go around which,
Ok, I believe there is some disconnect between what I am trying to say and what gets across here on the board.My Fault. First, I would like to clarify my words "final" and "short" final. Remember I fly a Cessna 150, so my turn to final from base is probably a 747's short final. My "short" final is most likely when a 747 starts to flare. So that being said, when i say I'm on short final and hear the words "go-around", just those words, nothing else, no call signs or anything, I will go around. If I hear "garble garble go-around", if I have time to ask if it was for me(most likely as I am real slow, 40degree flaps are wonderful, add some power while asking, land a bit long, and still land before the touchdown zone), I will, if not then I will use my judgement(what airfield, runway, winds, ETC) knowing that I can stop in about 500 feet, so a truck 3000 feet down the runway isn't an issue.
I'm sorry, no. Until I learn something different, if I am thinking about an aircraft behind me, then I give up some situational awareness about what going on in front of me. This is one of the few things that is a true zero sum game. And I will chose things I have control of, and that are in front of me vs those I can't control or are behind me. But thats just me.
Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 64): A pickup truck on the runway threshold is not REALLY that big a deal
Really? Please see this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWm2TAMwb3U
That SUV wasn't on the threshold. And remember VASI, PAPI are set up for a landing zone 1000' after the threshold. I usually land just after the threshold stripes(have landed on them, not my best landing but legal and safe) and can be stopped before the touchdown point. Remember I fly a 150, so my aim points, runway requirements, and stuff is different than those of you that fly bigger aircraft, and so are my decisions made while flying(do you worry about prop-wash or wake turbulence from a King Air? I sure do).
Quoting longhauler (Reply 65): They are saying that in some busy airport environments, two aircraft going around when departure was expecting one can have issues. And ... the biggest problem would be, if the go-around instruction was for the aircraft behind you, and ... you were the reason it was instructed to go-around!
Well my answer to that is, if in the above scenario, I do continue to land but just before touch down I start to get into PIO (BTDT), by your reasoning, I should still land, by my training says that I should go-around. But since there is another aircraft already going around, I'm prevented from going around? This is what I was talking about above when I said when I'm on final, cleared to land, the runway and airspace above it is mine. As far as I know, nobody can prevent me from going around. It may piss off ATC, but oh well. Better to have an upset controller than a busy mechanic due to a prop strike, or worse, a busy fireman.
1st, that was a cessna flying into a poe-dunk field, who was very low on approach. This film was discussed ad-nauseum in another thread.
2nd, had that cessna been aiming for the proper point there would have been no impact.
3rd, had that cessna been an Airbus 320, the pilots would probably have barely noticed the impact.
Quoting sprout5199 (Reply 69): So that being said, when i say I'm on short final and hear the words "go-around", just those words, nothing else, no call signs or anything, I will go around.
fine...you are the PIC you can do what you want, just understand that your head then needs to be on a swivel...and that guy behind you that you weren't paying attention to as part of your SA two seconds ago (that's what YOU said) might very well be a HUGE part of your problem now because if they sent HIM around because he was getting to close to you...well, now you're climbing into the path of a 180,000 lb jet going 170 knots (3 times your speed) at a high deck angle (so the pilots are probably not going to see you, not to mention they are as busy as a one arm monkey in a tree at this point.)
I think the problem most people are having with your posts, and the part that shows your newb status the most is the absolute nature of your statements. If you just added the word "consider" as in if I heard the words "go-around" I would "consider" going around I think we would have stopped grilling you a long time ago.
Another thing I think you should chew on is that I think if anything, your SA BEHIND you needs to be more concentrated on then focusing so much on what is in front of you. You are only going 100 knots forward, a jet in the traffic pattern with you could be closing in on you with 100-150 knots closure from behind. If you hear radio traffic that indicates the guy coming up behind you is having trouble maintaining separation from you (because you're going 70 and he's going 140), I think that should be at the fore-front of your thoughts.
Quoting sprout5199 (Reply 69): If I hear "garble garble go-around", if I have time to ask if it was for me(most likely as I am real slow, 40degree flaps are wonderful, ... knowing that I can stop in about 500 feet, so a truck 3000 feet down the runway isn't aadd some power whilen issue.
You were criticizing the actions of an Airline crew, not the pilot of a Cessna, they do not have the margins that you have.
So imagine what would happen if at ORD or JFK or pick your big airport everytime there was a garbled transmission with the word go-around in it everybody on the frequency simultaneously called to check if it was for them, by the time the squealing of the radio stopped it would all be over, or worse, everybody on the frequency simultaneously executed a missed approach. What a mess that would make at the center of the airport.
I'm not saying the crew acted perfectly, they SHOULD have known something was amiss at least, why they didn't is the subject of the investigation. Is this a BIG deal that the media/APC is making this out to be...I don't think so.
Gonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1690 posts, RR: 0 Reply 71, posted (3 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1867 times:
Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 70): I'm not saying the crew acted perfectly, they SHOULD have known something was amiss at least, why they didn't is the subject of the investigation.
That's the part I found puzzling....regardless the controller didn't use the best wording and emphasis, the "178 Go Around" is there, no doubt. How is possible that this AC crew says "we thought the call was for someone else" ? How many flights with a "178" in the call sign were using that frequency at the time ? The chances of a second plane with that number, at that time and place are null, and this crew should figure that out...
longhauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4315 posts, RR: 36 Reply 72, posted (3 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1860 times:
Quoting sprout5199 (Reply 69): Well my answer to that is, if in the above scenario, I do continue to land but just before touch down I start to get into PIO (BTDT), by your reasoning, I should still land, by my training says that I should go-around.
No, what you said was this ...
Quoting sprout5199 (Reply 27): As a student pilot i'll put my 2 cents in. If I am on short final and hear a call of go-around, I'm going around. End of story. Doesn't matter if the tower said my call sign or not.
That has nothing to do with whether a go-around is necessary as a result of an unsafe landing. You simply stated if you hear "go-around", you are going around, even if by your own admission, it may not have been for you!
What I said was this ...
Quoting longhauler (Reply 65): is when you state, you would do a go-around, even though the instruction was not for you ... just in case. That is not a good idea.
Followed directly by this ...
Quoting longhauler (Reply 65): Understand, they are not saying it is wrong to do a go-around for any reason you feel a landing is unsafe, (that is a good idea).
Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
sprout5199 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1783 posts, RR: 2 Reply 73, posted (3 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1745 times:
Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 70): 2nd, had that cessna been aiming for the proper point there would have been no impact.
Just what is a proper aiming point for a Cessna? at the 1000' mark? I always land before the "touchdown zone" on a runway that is painted. Anything after the threshold is available for touchdown.
Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 70): 1st, that was a cessna flying into a poe-dunk field, who was very low on approach
My home base is a grass strip, When I land on 09 I may land long so my taxi time is reduced, if using 27 I may try to put it on right after the threshold so I don't have to back-taxi to get to my hangar. Please keep your opinions about private pilots to yourself.
Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 70): and that guy behind you that you weren't paying attention to as part of your SA two seconds ago (that's what YOU said) might very well be a HUGE part of your problem now because if they sent HIM around because he was getting to close to you...well, now you're climbing into the path of a 180,000 lb jet going 170 knots (3 times your speed) at a high deck angle (so the pilots are probably not going to see you, not to mention they are as busy as a one arm monkey in a tree at this point.)
I think the problem most people are having with your posts, and the part that shows your newb status the most is the absolute nature of your statements. If you just added the word "consider" as in if I heard the words "go-around" I would "consider" going around I think we would have stopped grilling you a long time ago. And if you remember I did state that
Another thing I think you should chew on is that I think if anything, your SA BEHIND you needs to be more concentrated on then focusing so much on what is in front of you. You are only going 100 knots forward, a jet in the traffic pattern with you could be closing in on you with 100-150 knots closure from behind. If you hear radio traffic that indicates the guy coming up behind you is having trouble maintaining separation from you (because you're going 70 and he's going 140), I think that should be at the fore-front of your thoughts.
Again, I will state, as a "newb" with 187 landings, my focus is on flying the airplane, not on an aircraft approaching me from behind. What you are asking me to do is take into consideration the aircraft coming up behind me when my brain is deciding to go-around. I disagree with that. That is like asking an airline pilot to consider that he could be late to the gate when deciding to go-around. I know it happens, but it is wrong.
Quoting sprout5199 (Reply 27): As a student pilot i'll put my 2 cents in.
Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 70): You were criticizing the actions of an Airline crew, not the pilot of a Cessna, they do not have the margins that you have.
I was criticizing them from my point of view, as that's all I have. That being said I did say this:
Quoting sprout5199 (Reply 60): Big Iron may have different procedures and when a go-around can't be done. I don't know about that as I fly a Cessna 150M.
Quoting sprout5199 (Reply 69): So that being said, when i say I'm on short final and hear the words "go-around", just those words, nothing else, no call signs or anything, I will go around. If I hear "garble garble go-around", if I have time to ask if it was for me(most likely as I am real slow, 40degree flaps are wonderful, add some power while asking, land a bit long, and still land before the touchdown zone), I will, if not then I will use my judgement(what airfield, runway, winds, ETC) knowing that I can stop in about 500 feet, so a truck 3000 feet down the runway isn't an issue.
I guess I didn't do a good enough job. That being said, I have a question for those of you that are complex airplane pilots : If you are on short final, on say 18R, and another airplane is cleared to land on 18L next to you, and you hear the words "CHECK YOUR GEAR", do you look at the gear lights, knowing that you have put the gear down and gotten all green? The call wasn't for you but you still do it. correct? Not trying to be an a$$hole, but just trying to show that the world is not black and white, we are all human and we do make mistakes.
And this was a different scenario:
Quoting longhauler (Reply 65): They are saying that in some busy airport environments, two aircraft going around when departure was expecting one can have issues. And ... the biggest problem would be, if the go-around instruction was for the aircraft behind you, and ... you were the reason it was instructed to go-around!
and I responded with this:
Quoting sprout5199 (Reply 69): Well my answer to that is, if in the above scenario, I do continue to land but just before touch down I start to get into PIO (BTDT), by your reasoning, I should still land, by my training says that I should go-around. But since there is another aircraft already going around, I'm prevented from going around?
Which goes back to the above quotes about guys behind me. I guess I need to ask this question: Do you guys not give me the benefit of the doubt in that I know not to turn towards a parallel runway when making a go-around? Or that my S/A will change as soon as I have a pos. rate of climb? Or that I will announce that I am going around when it is safe to do so?
longhauler, thanks for your input, as it was/is insightful, and has made me think. And that sir, to me, is the best complement I can give to a airliners.net poster.
PassedV1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 156 posts, RR: 0 Reply 74, posted (3 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1672 times:
Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 71): That's the part I found puzzling....regardless the controller didn't use the best wording and emphasis, the "178 Go Around" is there, no doubt. How is possible that this AC crew says "we thought the call was for someone else" ? How many flights with a "178" in the call sign were using that frequency at the time ? The chances of a second plane with that number, at that time and place are null, and this crew should figure that out...
Rgds.
G.
The basic premise of your statement relies on the fact that the crew at least partially comprehended what was said. When the FO said (i'm presuming the FO was talking while on the ground which is 99% of the time true) "we thought it was for someone else" I pictured the pilots hearing literally "blah blah blah blah blah" looking at each other and thinking/saying "I have no idea what he just said, it must have been for somebody else"...and by "no idea" I mean, no comprehension of the call sign, no comprehension that a go-around was ordered...no comprehension at all.
Gonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1690 posts, RR: 0 Reply 75, posted (3 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1649 times:
Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 74): The basic premise of your statement relies on the fact that the crew at least partially comprehended what was said.
Yes, I know.... that's probably not entirely fair, since I didn't heard the LiveAtc record, and like others said before, that record is only a fraction of the actual environment on the cockpit at that stage of the flight...
All this discussion, and the incident itself, would not exist if the traffic controller had used the correct phraseology.
From IFALPA site :
"As the world becomes more and more “global”, language becomes a key factor in the efficiency of Pilot - Air Traffic Control (ATC) communications. Language and communication issues are very important because a miscommunication could potentially lead to a dangerous situation without any of the involved stakeholders being aware.
The use of standardized phraseology is one of the most important factors involved in the process of communication. It provides for quick and effective communication allowing us to overcome differences in language and at the same time reducing the opportunity for misunderstanding. Ambiguous or non-standard phraseology is a frequent causal or contributory factor in aircraft accidents and incidents.
The International Air Transport Association (IATA), together with the International Federation of Air Line Pilots' Associations (IFALPA) and the International Federation of Air Traffic Controllers’ Associations (IFATCA), has jointly prepared an on-line survey regarding communication issues, focusing on the non-use of ICAO standard phraseology.
Separate surveys for both airline Pilots and Air Traffic Controllers were prepared to collate the lessons learned in the area of communications. The survey questionnaires were prepared and set-up so that participants could easily respond via a survey engine website on the internet.
The use of “Aviation English” was explicitly excluded from the report as this issue has been managed through other venues. The surveys were designed to identify areas where established phraseology, or local phraseology, has been, or has the potential, to be misunderstood."
longhauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4315 posts, RR: 36 Reply 76, posted (3 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1647 times:
Quoting sprout5199 (Reply 73): longhauler, thanks for your input, as it was/is insightful, and has made me think.
I find that is the best things about these forums, they make you think. Even if what is said is wrong, you pause and think about it. And quite often ... what one reads is right, and good advice. There are a lot of well experienced people on this forum from all areas of aviation, and hearing what they have to say is better than reading a book!
As I always say with regard to aviation, it's a bad day you don't learn something!
Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
ytz From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 1482 posts, RR: 23 Reply 77, posted (3 months 17 hours ago) and read 1301 times:
The most concerning part of this incident is that the crew didn't pick up on their callsign. And this was at a time when the airport wasn't all that busy. Close to shutting down.
Why they missed that call is what should concern everybody. And will hopefully be found out.
Also, I have not seen a single report that says the crew saw the van. That could be good or bad news. Good news is the van had already cleared the runway and they saw a clear runway. Bad news could be that the crew didn't see the obstruction.
It's easy to look at this as a small incident. On the hand, there was real potential that the whole thing could have resulted in a hundred preventable funerals.
threepoint From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 2093 posts, RR: 8 Reply 78, posted (3 months 10 hours ago) and read 1124 times:
Quoting ytz (Reply 77):
Also, I have not seen a single report that says the crew saw the van.
Often, when approaching a large airport with bright approach lights and a sea of other illuminated objects in front of you, it's quite difficult to discern small objects that get lost in all the 'visual noise'. Seeing and recognizing a single slowly-moving van with a solitary orange flashing light would be quite difficult at the best of times.
No Dan, I'm afraid you didn't. I won't thrash to death all of the suggestions and pointers that others have lent you already, but as a longtime pilot & instructor who has spent a good deal of time in complex airplanes and in 150s much like your own, I do find difficulty with the reasoning that you have communicated here, and with the rigidity with which you have done so. Like all things, personal viewpoints tend to change with experience, and as you spend more time in the cockpit, especially around busy airports, you will understand the subtleties involved with many of the procedures that are given and expected.
I've viewed your valiant arguments in response to suggestions from all sides; maybe it's time to pause to reflect upon what some very experienced people are saying. We were all newbs once, and I'd say all of us started out with healthy doses of piss & vinegar. Most of us temper our attitudes as our experience grows, and we realize the mastery of a complex pursuit maybe won't be as quick or as easy as we had thought when we first soloed. There likely aren't a lot of controllers at your grass home field, so maybe see if you can spend a couple hours in the tower of a busier airport nearby. Sit and observe and ask 'what if' questions and play a few scenarios past the approach people and hopefully you'll get an idea of the consequences of unexpected actions by pilots.
Best of luck with your flying pursuits. But make sure you're aware of my presence if I'm the plane in trail of you in line to land!
The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.
Sponsor Message: 
From Canada, joined Mar 2006, 130 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 209 posts, 
From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 5102 posts, 
From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1690 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2006, 1720 posts, 
From Australia, joined Mar 2012, 302 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21679 posts, 
I'm honestly surprised that the guy didn't set the parking brake. I'm a commercial driver, and I've been out on the ramps at more than one airport...and, on every ramp I've ever been on, a standard ground-rule is that the parking brake is required to be applied before stepping out of the vehicle, and they're pretty strict about that at least at the FBO ramps. Even in a "safe" situation off a ramp, I won't get out of the driver's seat unless the parking brake's applied. It honestly amazes me that so few people use the parking brake...OTOH I'm a big fan of redundancies...
Printer friendly format 
